Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
G & G Closed Circuit Events alleged that a Stockton sports bar displayed the 2021 Alvarez–Plant championship fight without a commercial license. After substitute service at 17 Embarcadero Cove in Oakland, Everett Hunter did not appear. The clerk entered default, and the district court entered judgment in January 2025.
Hunter moved in June 2026 to set the judgment aside as void for defective service. He said he first learned of the judgment in November 2025. His evidence included an unverified declaration and materials concerning who worked at the Oakland address. The motion therefore presented both a timing question under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) and a service question under California law.
Rule 60(b)(4) permits relief when a judgment is void, including in the narrow circumstance where lack of valid service deprived the court of personal jurisdiction. But the recommendation treated the rule as an exceptional remedy rather than a substitute for prompt participation in litigation. Rule 60(c)(1)’s reasonable-time language required the court to evaluate Hunter’s conduct after notice, even though his theory attacked the judgment’s validity.
California substitute service also has a sequence. After reasonable diligence attempting personal delivery, papers may be left at a usual place of business with a person apparently in charge, followed by mailing. The recommendation considered three service attempts adequate and treated Hunter’s own business records as corroboration of the location. Its evidentiary point is equally practical: an unsworn statement can function as a declaration in federal court only when it includes the statutory statement that its contents are true under penalty of perjury.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan recommended denial. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2026 Coney Island decision, the recommendation concluded that even a Rule 60(b)(4) motion asserting a void judgment must be made within a reasonable time. Hunter waited seventeen months after judgment and about seven months after his admitted notice. Settlement discussions did not justify that delay.
The recommendation also rejected the service challenge on the merits. A signed return supplied prima facie evidence of service, while Hunter’s declaration lacked the penalty-of-perjury language required for an unsworn federal declaration. Public business filings repeatedly tied Hunter and the bar to 17 Embarcadero Cove. After three unsuccessful personal-service attempts, delivery to a person apparently in charge followed by mailing satisfied California’s substitute-service rule. The ruling remained findings and recommendations: the district judge had not yet entered the proposed denial, and objections were permitted within fourteen days.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 60(b)(4) does not create an unlimited period to attack a judgment as void.
- A process server’s return requires strong, competent contrary evidence, not an unverified narrative.
- California business filings can establish that an address was a defendant’s usual place of business for substitute service.
- The document recommended denial; it was not itself the final ruling on Hunter’s motion.
Why It Matters
The recommendation gives California litigators a practical record-building lesson. A party moving against a default should document exactly when it learned of the judgment, explain every material delay, and submit evidence that satisfies federal declaration requirements. On the serving side, multiple attempts, careful identification of the recipient, prompt mailing, and contemporaneous public records can make substitute service resilient to a later collateral attack.